What is the test for reversing a finding of insufficient evidence in a robbery case?

(People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715.) "A reversal for insufficient evidence 'is unwarranted unless it appears "that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support"' the jury's verdict." (People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357.)

"Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear." ( 211.) "'[F]orce' or 'fear' must be the means by which the taking was accomplished." (People v. Prieto (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 210, 215.) "The element of fear for purposes of robbery is satisfied when there is sufficient fear to cause the victim to comply with the unlawful demand for his property." (People v. Ramos (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 591, 601-602, overruled on another point in People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353, fn. 16.)

Generally, an inherently inconsistent verdict is allowed to stand if supported by sufficient evidence.⁵ (People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 656; People v. Pahl (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1651, 1656 [in cases of inconsistent verdicts, defendants "take the position that the acquittal is the legally correct verdict while the

Page 6

conviction is not. This argument has been universally rejected because inconsistent verdicts are probably the result of compromise in the jury room or of an extension of leniency or mercy to the defendant"].) In other words, "the fact that a guilty verdict on one count is inconsistent with an acquittal verdict on another [does not] compel[] reversal if there is substantial evidence to support the conviction." (People v. Pahl, supra, 226 Cal.3d at p. 1657; see also 954 ["An acquittal of one or more counts shall not be deemed an acquittal of any other count"].) This rule applies equally to enhancements. (People v. Lopez (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 565, 571 ["The fact that the word 'enhancement' is used rather than 'offense' does not nullify the underlying rationale of refusing to invalidate an inconsistent jury verdict if it is otherwise supported by substantial evidence"]; People v. Federico, supra 127 Cal.App.3d at pp. 32-33 [affirming first degree murder conviction for shooting death where jury found not true allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm].)